Religious Intolerance in Congress?

[Vyan]

(Crossposted from Truth 2 Power)

"The First Time I Knew You Lied, I ended up Crucified..." Sevendust.

What a horrible thing it would be for a U.S. Congressman to be persecuted and verbally Crucified for his religious beliefs... yet that exact situation has begun to rear it's ugly head on Talk Radio.

This week Right-Wing Radio Host Dennis Prager has claimed that Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first elected Muslim to Congress, has...

announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

Prager said this “act undermines American civilization,” and compared it to being sworn in with a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

Too bad hardly a lick of this vicious lie is actually true.

It's bad enough that Rep Ellison has already had to suffer being accused of being a traitor by CNN's Glenn Beck.

"Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."

But now he's being accused of claiming that he will be sworn in as a Congressman with his hand on the Koran - yet he has (most likely) said nothing of the kind.

How do I know this? Because the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book.

From Thinkprogress

The Office of the House Clerk confirmed to ThinkProgress that the swearing-in ceremony consists only of the Members raising their right hands and swearing to uphold the Constitution. The Clerk spokesperson said neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious text, had ever been used in an official capacity during the ceremony. (Occassionally, Members pose for symbolic photo-ops with their hand on a Bible.)

Below, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is sworn in last year by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) with his hand on the rostrum:

Moreso, it's actually Unconstitutional for a religious book or religious litmus test of any kind to be included and Prager has admitted this.

In an interview with USA Today, Prager acknowledged that “trying to ban Ellison from choosing to use a Quran ‘may well be’ unconstitutional.” As various commentators have pointed out Prager’s demandviolates the Constitution’s provision (Under Article VI) that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

This of course, hasn't slowed down Prager, even though he himself - is Jewish.

Stone, who wrote about the controversy in USA TODAY this morning, reports that today Prager said it would be just as wrong for Jews to use the Torah, or what Christians call the Old Testament, as it would be for Ellison to use the Quran.

"I'm not arguing legality. I'm arguing what you should do," he said, saying that even though he is a religious Jew, he would take an oath of public office using the Christian Bible, which includes the Old and New Testaments.

"The New Testament is not my Bible but it is America's Bible," he said, noting that Jewish officeholders who had insisted on the Hebrew Bible were "secularists" who didn't believe what was in it anyway.

It's America's Bible?

What is wrong with these people? Hello, Seperation of Church and State much? The entire point of much of the Constitution and much of this nation is to avoid the creation of a State Religion.

From Federalist #10 - We must protect ourselves from the Zeal of Faction.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

From Federalist #51 - We must dedicate ourselves to Freedom and Justice.

In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.

From Federalist #57. - We must not limit our Representitives based solely on their adherence to faction, but to their adherence to Country and Constitution.

Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State. Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the inclination of the people. If we consider the situation of the men on whom the free suffrages of their fellow-citizens may confer the representative trust, we shall find it involving every security which can be devised or desired for their fidelity to their constituents.

There are the foundations of our Nation. Nowhere is it claimed among these papers that "America is Christian."

Or to put it another way - Prager is a Fuckwad. But unfortunately he's not a solitary fuckwad...

In a show of support, the American Family Association has launched a campaign urging Congress “to pass a law making the Bible the book used in the swearing-in ceremony of representatives and senators.”

Oy!

Vyan

[dsc]

1. He just keeps digging the hole deeper

The only public official I know of so far who used the Torah was the GOP governor of Hawaii, who ran and won largley on being anti gay.

[twilight_sailing]

2. Are we a free country or not?

It's that simple.

We, the free people of America, can elect any damn representative we want.

[charles22]

3. Prager is just a hate filled bigot.

He once said there is no racism in America.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. It amazes me

that he is a Jew and thinks that discrimination, etc, is OK? Jews have been discriminated against for millenia! And what does it say about his relationship to his religion when he calls the Bible "America's holy book"? Doesn't that mean he is belittling his own faith, or saying that it is somehow "anti-American"?

[Paperspirit]

5. Here is a link

To the venom and hate the right-wingers are slinging about this.

http://www.conservativesforum.com/cgi-bin/politics/YaBB.pl?board=conservative;action=display;num=1164729723


It's sad, really.